True to form

October 12, 2007 10:46 AM

True to form, this post could use a little balance.

"True to form" implies there is some factual consensus to what you say, when really it's sort of an opinion for your blog. If someone said, "True to form, the frenzied pill zealots in Ask Metafilter are hysterically recommending Paxil" it would be deleted fairly quickly. I'd posit you're post is no different.

posted by four panels to Etiquette/Policy at 10:46 AM (85 comments total)

True to form, four panels is ___________, etc.
posted by four panels at 10:49 AM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]

True to form, four panels is offering us a form, etc.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:52 AM on October 12, 2007

I disagree, four panels; I think four panels makes a good point. I flagged that post when I saw it, hopefully it'll get tidied up.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:54 AM on October 12, 2007

True.
posted by eyeballkid at 10:54 AM on October 12, 2007

True to form, your mother still hasn't paid up for last night.
posted by Krrrlson at 10:57 AM on October 12, 2007

She wasn't satisfied.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:59 AM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]

True to form.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:59 AM on October 12, 2007

True to form, MeTa descends into snark.
posted by blue_beetle at 10:59 AM on October 12, 2007

True to form, this thread is dangerously unbalanced by the incorrect use of the word "you're".
I will not stand for this grammatical terrorism
posted by phaedon at 11:04 AM on October 12, 2007

True to form, Krrrlson is a motherfucker.
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:07 AM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]

Truman to Foreman, wise men have understood that if you can't stand the heat you should probably get out of the grill.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 11:10 AM on October 12, 2007 [5 favorites]

BRIAN: Brothers! Brothers! We should be struggling together!
FRANCIS: We are! Ohh.
BRIAN: We mustn't fight each other! Surely we should be united against the common enemy!
EVERYONE: The Judean People's Front?!
BRIAN: No, no! The Romans!
EVERYONE: Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yes.
FRANCIS: Yeah. He's right.
posted by Kattullus at 11:11 AM on October 12, 2007 [3 favorites]

True to form, I'd posit you're DRUNKER THAN MY STINKING UNCLE JIM.
posted by koeselitz at 11:26 AM on October 12, 2007

Hey four panels, perhaps that thread would be the appropriate place for you to finally get answers to all those questions you had about the sex lives of retarded people.
posted by veronica sawyer at 11:29 AM on October 12, 2007

True to form, no "big ups" will be granted in this thread.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:31 AM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]

Crüe to form, this callout spawned some Mötley comments.
posted by amyms at 11:32 AM on October 12, 2007

Not grue to form, this post takes place neither on the blue nor the green.
posted by Kwine at 11:44 AM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]

Boo to form, it's almost Halloween, and I hear the UN Bomb Disposal Expert costume is flying of shelves nationwide.
posted by dead_ at 11:49 AM on October 12, 2007

Or is that exploding off shelves?
posted by dead_ at 11:50 AM on October 12, 2007

Cuneiform, this thread is composed of slim triangular or wedge-shaped elements, as the characters used in writing by the ancient Akkadians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, and others.
posted by RokkitNite at 11:56 AM on October 12, 2007 [4 favorites]

Who are you talking to?

True to form, this callout is itself not beyond reproach.
posted by desuetude at 12:01 PM on October 12, 2007

Poodle-form, ...

Eh, I got nothin'.
posted by trip and a half at 12:02 PM on October 12, 2007

Shmoo to form, it tastes like chicken. (Or beef.) (Or oysters.)
posted by brain_drain at 12:10 PM on October 12, 2007

Oh dear, someone has insulted Israel. Whatever shall we do?
posted by smackfu at 12:15 PM on October 12, 2007

True to form, any post with an editorial point of view on a news topic is a piece of shit and probably shouldn't be on the front page.
posted by dios at 12:15 PM on October 12, 2007

Jew to form, that dude refused to work on Saturday.
posted by Divine_Wino at 12:18 PM on October 12, 2007

Again, "true to form" is historically correct, in the sense that Israel has long ignored the UN, from UNSC 242 on.

"Balance", as such, would require something akin to accepting the false equivalence of creationism with evolutionary theory.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:21 PM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]

"Balance", as such, would require something akin to accepting the false equivalence of creationism with evolutionary theory.

That would both possess balance and, I daresay, be quite fair!
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:22 PM on October 12, 2007

Blazecock Pileon: "Again, "true to form" is historically correct, in the sense that Israel has long ignored the UN, from UNSC 242 on."

Eh, fuck the UN.
posted by koeselitz at 12:29 PM on October 12, 2007

Eh, fuck the UN.

Yeah, that's what makes it true to form.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:33 PM on October 12, 2007

It was a crappy post about a newsfilterish topic and I removed it. If the story is important enough, someone else can repost it with less OMG language.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:39 PM on October 12, 2007

That's so weird. I posted this like, a minute before the thread was closed. Coincidence or not, my sense of self-importance is expanding. True to form.
posted by Brak at 12:43 PM on October 12, 2007

Zoo reform: let's keep the monkeys out of MeTa.
posted by Durin's Bane at 12:49 PM on October 12, 2007

Scooter horn: I'm out of my head on Sudafed today.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:52 PM on October 12, 2007

School reform: "I'm so glad I'm a Beta. Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas..."
posted by Miko at 1:00 PM on October 12, 2007

What? No "you're"/"your" remark yet? MeTa, y-y-you... wait... who are you and what did you do with the real MeTa's body?
posted by Rhomboid at 1:02 PM on October 12, 2007

Sprue to form, my 1/72 scale plastic model of Metafilter is just an excuse to spend hours every day sniffing glue.
posted by breezeway at 1:03 PM on October 12, 2007

Still waiting for a good term for that thing where someone bemoans the absence in a thread of something that isn't actually absent.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:04 PM on October 12, 2007

Grue to form, you are standing in an open field west of a white house.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:08 PM on October 12, 2007

someone bemoans the absence in a thread of something that isn't actually absent.

True to form, no one actually reads threads. That would slow down the rush to comment.
posted by Miko at 1:14 PM on October 12, 2007

Strewn and torn, I think I'll just admit to skimming failure.
posted by Rhomboid at 1:16 PM on October 12, 2007

This post was deleted for the following reason: please keep editorializing out of FPPs, particularly newsfilterish FPPs. -- jessamyn

weak. count me very as unimpressed that you caved. newsfilter would have sufficed but to call the truth editorializing is offensive.
posted by srboisvert at 1:17 PM on October 12, 2007

Still waiting for a good term for that thing where someone bemoans the absence in a thread of something that isn't actually absent.

He should self-inform? Try to conform? Avoid the storm?

Anybody want a peanut?
posted by Durin's Bane at 1:20 PM on October 12, 2007

Count me as apathetic either way, since we're apparently keeping score. I'd love to stay and help run this argument into the cold fucking ground, but I've got some prunes to thorn.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 1:23 PM on October 12, 2007

newsfilter would have sufficed but to call the truth editorializing is offensive.

So it's only editorializing if it's false? Someone better tell all the newspapers in the world.
posted by brain_drain at 1:23 PM on October 12, 2007

No, wait.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 1:23 PM on October 12, 2007

So it's only editorializing if it's false?

The implication is that editorializing adds falsehood to the description, no?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:26 PM on October 12, 2007

editorializing does not add or detract from any falsehood. Instead, it suggests a strong point of view which frames the terms of the discussion to follow in ways that skew participation.
posted by Miko at 1:33 PM on October 12, 2007

The implication is that editorializing adds gas to the goddam fire, is what. There are any number of sentiments that I reckon a healthy majority of mefites would agree with that would nonetheless make for really lousy framing of a post.

This is also not the first time (this year, for that matter) that james_cpi has posted about clusterbombs, which makes the whole thing feel a bit more grindy and unnecessary.

An editorial edge to a post tends to promote an argument about said editorializing that distracts from what is often touted as the redeeming value of newsy posts: the quality of discussion of the topic. Setting it up to fail seems like a really bad idea in general.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:35 PM on October 12, 2007

The implication is that editorializing adds falsehood to the description, no?

Catholic, womanizing John F. Kennedy, speaking in the presence of many other white, privileged elite, said regarding white, male slave-owner Thomas Jefferson, "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent and of human knowledge that has ever been gathered together at the White House—with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:45 PM on October 12, 2007

Goodness, calling someone a Catholic is now editorializing? Really?

I get the point you're making, but "true to form" is not (IMO) really editorializing on the same level. Just my opinion, of course.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:47 PM on October 12, 2007

Goodness, calling someone a Catholic is now editorializing? Really?

Hang out with many Protestants then, do you?
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:54 PM on October 12, 2007

Goodness, calling someone a Catholic is now editorializing? Really?

Heh. Not at all. I just thought it sounded like a creepy sort of personal trait to add to the factual description to make the point.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:55 PM on October 12, 2007

Personally, I think the post should have been deleted for shitty sense of grammar. "A British mine disposal expert has been killed... during last year's war"?
posted by koeselitz at 1:59 PM on October 12, 2007

I just thought it sounded like a creepy sort of personal trait to add to the factual description to make the point.

Sigh. That could be read wrong, too, I guess. *clears throat* I'm not implying that being Catholic is creepy. I'm saying that bringing up someone's religion when it has no relevance would be creepy.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:01 PM on October 12, 2007

"Balance", as such, would require something akin to accepting the false equivalence of creationism with evolutionary theory.

You're certifiably insane.
posted by Krrrlson at 2:01 PM on October 12, 2007

Brew to Norm, because he's been coming to this bar night after night for years.

"NORM!"
posted by Parasite Unseen at 2:03 PM on October 12, 2007

true to form" is not (IMO) really editorializing on the same level

It's not as blatant, but the effect is the same. It gives rise to the question "What is 'form' for Israel?" and presupposes the answer that form is for Israel not to cooperate with the U.N. People taking exception to that 'truth' would distract attention from the supposed subject of the thread. It also suggests that there's some sort of shared understanding that can be taken for granted, when in fact, I'm not sure that we'd all agree that Israel's form is to be obstructionist.
posted by Miko at 2:03 PM on October 12, 2007

It gives rise to the question "What is 'form' for Israel?" and presupposes the answer that form is for Israel not to cooperate with the U.N.

Is this false? Is this particular instance of "form" not germane, when trying to understand the cause of Appleby's (avoidable) death?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:09 PM on October 12, 2007

You're certifiably insane.

If I recall, I wasn't the one who equated legitimate criticism with fomenting genocide.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:11 PM on October 12, 2007

As pointed out already, the issue is not whether it is true or false, it's whether it is leading. Which is pretty much the definition of editorializing.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:14 PM on October 12, 2007

Fair enough. Ultimately, I disagree that the words "true to form" are themselves leading (they certainly aren't misleading), but in the context provided by cortex, I can see why it could be construed as unnecessarily provocative.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:22 PM on October 12, 2007

Jew to Ann: Shut the fuck up!
posted by ericb at 2:23 PM on October 12, 2007

I disagree that the words "true to form" are themselves leading

It's hard to imagine a rhetoric in which "true to form" doesn't refer to a pre-existing pattern of behavior, or form. The reader is led to wonder what the '"form" is, and led to accept the writer's assertion that this "form" is part of a set of predictable behaviors.
posted by Miko at 2:28 PM on October 12, 2007

Also, I can't ever remember hearing anyone use "true to form" to imply anything positive. Maybe that's just me. So it has a kind of negative connotation just by its use. Kind of like being called a "liberal" these days. It's not an insult, but it might as well be, because that's how the term is mostly intended these days.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:33 PM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]

Jew to Ann: Shut the fuck up!

Hmmm, is "blonde-tressed pundit" editorializing?

Also, I can't ever remember hearing anyone use "true to form" to imply anything positive

"true to form"
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:42 PM on October 12, 2007

True to form, I am awesome today.
posted by smackfu at 2:53 PM on October 12, 2007 [2 favorites]

I know it can be, Armitage, I just mean that, anecdotally, when I've heard the phrase used it's almost always implied a bit of a stab. That's why I compared it to "liberal," which is a perfectly reasonable thing to be, but still frequently used as an accusatory in current speech.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:57 PM on October 12, 2007

But admittedly, I probably overstated my case on that point.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:59 PM on October 12, 2007

Big ups, smack. Copius big ups.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:00 PM on October 12, 2007

True to form 1051(b), I deducted no more than twenty percent (20%) of my gross domestic receipts for laundering and/or dry cleaning of clothes, provided that twenty percent (20%) does not exceed ten percent (10%) of my gross annual income as adjusted by schedule 2-010Z; or fifteen percent (15%) of my unadjusted gross, not disregarding my Earned Income Credit (EIC) for tax years 2002-2005, excluding 2004, as my annualized Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) was that year amortized to absorb a 27% drop in revenue for my LLC.

Please sign and date below to acknowledge your receipt of this notice. Please initial here ______ to acknowledge your receipt of the request to sign below. Please initial here ______ to acknowledge that you have read the request to initial the your acknowledgement of the request to sign below. Please initial here ______ to acknowledge that you have read the request to initial the your acknowledgement of the request to sign below. Please initial here ______ to acknowledge that you have read the request to initial the your acknowledgement of the request to sign below. Please initial here ______ to acknowledge that you have read the request to initial the your acknowledgement of the request to sign below. Please initial here ______ to acknowledge that you have read the request to initial the your acknowledgement of the request to sign below.



x___________________________________________

Dated this ___________th day of ________, 20___.


NOTARY ADDENDUM


(place seal here)
posted by Eideteker at 4:44 PM on October 12, 2007

(y'ever wake up drunk to find out you bought a house?)
posted by Eideteker at 4:46 PM on October 12, 2007

Miko : editorializing does not add or detract from any falsehood. Instead, it suggests a strong point of view which frames the terms of the discussion to follow in ways that skew participation.

Yes. Exactly.

I objected to it in thread, not because I doubt that Israel has not been forthcoming with information about the location of these bombs, but because it immediately frames the conversation in a way that paints this to be the wrong course of action (which I think it is). A less loaded statement like "As has been their procedure..." or "Following their established protocol..." says essentially the same thing in a less accusatory tone.

We have all seen the kind of shitfests that I/P threads can devolve into under the best of conditions. To start out supporting one side or the other is just asking for the conversation to fail.
posted by quin at 4:50 PM on October 12, 2007

Sure, if by "bought a house" you mean "paid money for someone in a fancy jacket who was built like a brick house."
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:52 PM on October 12, 2007

I was kinda bummed that it was deleted, though, as the thread was just really getting interesting. The stuff about Hezbollah using small amounts of cluster bombs too was rather big news to me, and I was hoping to talk some more about that.

As I tried to say in a post, but had the thread closed out from under me: cluster bombs suck no matter who does them, and I was wondering how credible that source was.

Krrrlson, you'll be happy to know I was ready to seethe at the Lebanese too.
posted by Malor at 5:06 PM on October 12, 2007

Do these jeans make my form look true?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:07 PM on October 12, 2007

someone in a fancy jacket who was built like a brick house.

She's a brick house
She's might mighty
Just lettin' it all hang out
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:02 PM on October 12, 2007

Glad I saw this, since I missed it on the blue. Good links, james_cpi, thanks for posting.
posted by homunculus at 9:10 PM on October 12, 2007

homunculus is right, and I probably overreacted.

And we all keep moving on.
posted by four panels at 9:43 PM on October 12, 2007

And true to form, the pro-Israel lobby manages to avert discussion of Israeli war crimes and atrocities.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:11 AM on October 13, 2007

Yes, good job, fellow members of the all-powerful pro-Israel lobby. Today we stopped Internet enthusiast PeterMcDermott from discussing Israeli war crimes -- the one thing that could have foiled our evil plans!
posted by Krrrlson at 12:25 AM on October 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

I agree with homunculus. I can see how "true to form" could be taken as leading, but given the substance of the issue highlighted in the linked content, hardly enough to merit removal of the post. Those who objected to the characterisation could have said so in the ensuing discussion, and indeed did.
posted by Abiezer at 4:39 AM on October 13, 2007

Can you admins just let us edit our own posts so you don't have to delete perfectly good ones that make a slight faux pas?
posted by tehloki at 1:07 AM on October 14, 2007 [1 favorite]

Israel Struck a Nuclear Project in Syria, Analysts Say
posted by homunculus at 1:01 PM on October 14, 2007

Poo to form, this thread stinks.

I can't believe no one has posted that yet!
posted by slogger at 7:55 PM on October 14, 2007